Literature DB >> 16924209

Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications.

Christoph J Siepe1, H Michael Mayer, Karsten Wiechert, Andreas Korge.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective study analyzing midterm clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement (ProDisc II) for different indications.
OBJECTIVES: To assess functional outcome after total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) treated for varying indications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite its frequent use and increasing popularity, indications and contraindications for TDR have not been defined precisely at this stage and remain a matter of debate, leading to disc replacement procedures in a variety of pathologies that have not yet been evaluated and compared separately.
METHODS: Patients meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated prospectively according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Questionnaire, SF-36, and numerous clinical parameters. Indications included degenerative disc disease (DDD), DDD with accompanying soft disc herniation (nucleus pulposus prolapse, NPP), osteochondrosis following previous discectomy, and DDD with presence of Modic changes. Postoperative improvement was recorded and analyzed for influence of preoperative diagnosis.
RESULTS: Overall, 92 patients from four groups with a mean follow-up of 34.2 months (minimum, 24 months) achieved significant and maintained improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0001). Patients with DDD + NPP achieved results significantly better than patients from the other groups (P < 0.05). Presence of Modic changes or previous discectomy did not influence outcome negatively. Improvement was achieved for both monosegmental and bisegmental disc replacements (P < 0.05), nevertheless with significantly inferior results for bisegmental interventions at 12- and 24-month follow-up and considerably higher complication rate. While older patients were still highly satisfied with postoperative outcome, better functional outcome was observed in younger patients.
CONCLUSION: Present data suggest beneficial clinical results of TDR for treatment of DDD in a highly selected group of patients. Better functional outcome was obtained in younger patients under 40 years of age and patients with degenerative disc disease in association with disc herniation. Multilevel disc replacement had significantly higher complication rate and inferior outcome. Results are significantly dependent on preoperative diagnosis and patient selection, number of replaced segments, and age of the patient at the time of operation. Because of significantly varying outcomes, indications for disc replacement must be defined precisely.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16924209     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000228780.06569.e8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  39 in total

1.  Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Alejandro Reyes-Sánchez; Barón Zárate-Kalfópulos; Isabel Ramírez-Mora; Luis Miguel Rosales-Olivarez; Armando Alpizar-Aguirre; Guadalupe Sánchez-Bringas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-22       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Elisabeth Haas; Wolfgang Hitzl; Ulrike Szeimies; Axel Stäbler; Christoph Weiler; Andreas G Nerlich; Michael H Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Karsten Wiechert; Mohamed F Khattab; Andreas Korge; H Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Hybrid stabilization with ALIF L5/S1 and total disc replacement L4/L5.

Authors:  Othmar Schwarzenbach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Parameters that effect spine biomechanics following cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Vijay K Goel; Ahmad Faizan; Vivek Palepu; Sanghita Bhattacharya
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Wu Yajun; Zhu Yue; Han Xiuxin; Cui Cui
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Dionysios K Giannoulis; Andreas G Tsantes; Anastasios V Korompilias
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-10-06

8.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Modic type I changes and recovery of back pain after lumbar microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Andreas Sørlie; Viggo Moholdt; Kjell Arne Kvistad; Øystein P Nygaard; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Trond Iversen; Roar Kloster; Tore K Solberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Biotribological evaluation of artificial disc arthroplasty devices: influence of loading and kinematic patterns during in vitro wear simulation.

Authors:  Thomas M Grupp; James J Yue; Rolando Garcia; Janet Basson; Jens Schwiesau; Bernhard Fritz; Wilhelm Blömer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.